Once again we are reading stories that Uncle Joe’s regime is being urged to (and plans to) defy the US Supreme Court, refusing to obey their decisions. Which means that the FedGov bureaucrats will continue to do things the Nine Nazgul have determined to be unconstitutional. And in some cases, refuse to do things which are the obligation of the Executive Branch to do according to the Constitution.
At the same time, the usual demands to “reform” the Supremes seem to be increasing in number and loudness. Not even looking at general attacks on the US Constitution, we see cries for packing the Court (as attempted by FDR), for “codes of conduct” and term limits, and other tampering with SCOTUS. The intent seems to be pushing multiple objectives. First, they want to take away more of the little independence that the courts – particularly SCOTUS – has from the other two official branches of government. First at the Fedgov and no doubt then in the States. Second, they want to ensure that the court will be permanently slanted to a “liberal” (Woke, regressive) majority. So that these people would still win even if they cannot reduce (or eliminate) the courts’ independence (ala most European “democracies”). Third, they want to discredit the courts to win popular support for the current (and future) regimes ignoring the courts. And finally, it is clear that these people – the Woke and regressivists and totalitarians – want to intimidate the courts: if not the justices and judges themselves, then their supporting staff.
The court-meddlers are unlikely to succeed in all these objectives. But they don’t need to: just gaining one or two will further speed the decay of our dead republic. And further damage society.
And SCOTUS is mostly defenseless – hence our headline question.
With Congress divided among the old parties, for the most part being hyper-partisan, and only “nonpartisan” when it comes to ignoring whether or not something is constitutional, moral, or wise, what can be done to force the White House and the Imperial Presidency – and all its minions – to obey the Constitution?
Absolutely nothing.
At least nothing that is considered “acceptable” and “peaceful” and not condemned (by most of both old parties) as being an uprising, rebellion, or attempt to overthrow the government. A real attempt – not the 6 January 2021 fun and games at the US Capitol.
And honestly. If the SCOTUS asked for help from people inside or outside government, to enforce their decisions? Would they get anyone? The DOJ, includng the FBI? Please. Any of the dozen other heavily-armed federal agencies? Seriously? The military? Not given the current Woke, eager to go-to-war people in charge at the Pentagon. Who would no doubt attempt to turn their own weapons on some military commander attempting to aid the court system in defiance of Uncle Joe’s mob.
And meanwhile, the propaganda war and the attempt to wreck havoc on society and traditions continues. This one just appeared today, weeks after the SCOTUS decision it condemns.
The entire article (be warned, it is one of those frustrating bizarre clickbait type presentations to maximize ad revenue) is incredibly biased and hateful – exactly the same things they are calling christians and others they label as “homphobic” and “transphobic” out on.
People refuse to understand that there is a huge difference between refusing to serve or sell something to someone and refusing to do a specific service or sell a specific product to someone. Especially when that product is created by the seller exercising their God-given right to free speech. The right to speak and print freely ALSO means the right to refuse to speak or write or print something.
But that does not serve the purpose of people who want to corrupt all people to be as without hope as they are. Who want to tear down society and government – not for the purpose of expanding liberty, but with the goal of being able to lord it over everyone. Indeed, enemies of liberty.
We here at TPOL like to think that lovers of liberty and other libertarians understand that liberty is paramount. Refusing to participate with someone in some action with which you disagree is definitely a natural right that free people have. And does not make you, in the eyes of rational people, a bigot or monster.
The Price of Liberty 
“We here at TPOL like to think that lovers of liberty and other libertarians understand that liberty is paramount”
Sure. But “lovers of liberty” may (after generations of gov school indoc) represent perhaps 20% of the population. Look at the Biden vote among 20somethings. Plus the DC “open borders” libertarians are determined to import masses of third world voters, which is accelerating the process.
What option does 20% of the population have when it has become an embattled and discriminated-against minority? Even if I’m a bit off on the percentage, it’s certainly under half. The options at 60% or 80% are very different from at 20%.
LikeLike
You are right. But does not history show that even very small numbers – very low percentages of the general population – can sometimes make a difference. And even liberate themselves and a few others. I suspect, as you do, that 20% is overly generous.
LikeLike
The courts weren’t supposed to be the equal of the other two branches. Madison and Hamilton both wrote that they were much weaker, by design. No one could figure out how to keep a government court from becoming a star chamber, so they granted Congress the authority to create (and as a consequence, disband) Article 3 courts. They figured with enough trial and error, Congress would eventually figure out something that didn’t run roughshod over the people. We see how that turned out…
Courts were to issue opinions. It was up to the executive to see their decisions implemented.
And in the end, it was up to the states to make sure the executive did his job, that Congress remained limited to it’s defined powers, and that would likely mean enacting legislation that the state, who created the Supreme Court, had final say over whatever was some federal court’s opinion. “Sure, we agree” or “Thanks, but no thanks” was up to the state’s legislature.
Government supremacists destroyed that order by the time the ink was dry on the Bill of Rights. We’ve been in a slowly metastasizing cancerous tyranny since at least the early 1800s.
LikeLike
Good points. Weaker, but reinforced by the power of the States themselves. Which were gutted quickly. With their willing cooperation and encouragement, were they not. As you say, not created equal, but the Courts have grown more and more powerful – and also more susceptible to a whole raft of temptations. What is the solution? How do we at least get back to the original intent?
LikeLike
I’d like to say I think there’s a chance. But I don’t see a path to the other side that doesn’t involve at least a lot of suffering.
A key assumption in Montesquieu’s framework (as applied in the Constitution) is that States would vigorously defend their interests in their selection of Senators and that the people would equally vigorously defend their interests in their selection of the House. Neither is still the case.
I think probably the cause of this is universal sufferage. Montesquieu’s ideas only work if you are defending your interests, not if your goal is to destroy or usurp others’ interests. At the time, I don’t think anyone ever considered expanding the franchise beyond landholding heads of household, who have skin in the game.
The Enemy used universal sufferage to make envy, greed, covetousness, and outright theft proper and “moral” in society. You don’t have an ox? Take your neighbors’ ox. Society will support your action, so long as it’s couched in terms of Democracy.
So do I see a path through? Yes, but it involves repentance, a society-wide turning from sin. Which I do not think probable. At least until there is nothing left to steal.
LikeLike